Anti-Globalization different

globalization means different things to many an(prenominal) people. Some think of it positively, era others dont. Some view it with hope and confidence, others with fear, sometimes with hostility.Globalization, according to the definition of the International Monetary descent (IMF), is a historical process, the result of human innovation and technological process. It refers to the increasing integration of economies around the world, in particular foxiness and financial flows.The term sometimes also refers to the nominal head of people (labor) and knowledge (technology) across world-wide borders (IMF Staff, 2002). A more simplistic definition of globalisation refers to it as the process of increasing the connectivity and interdependence of the worlds markets and businesses (Investor Words, 2007). much(prenominal) a process has sped up dramatically in the last two decades as technological advances clear it easier for people to travel, communicate, and do business globally. Globalization is not entirely a new concept. Analysts argued that the world economy became global as early as during the height of the rivalry between Spain and Portugal for world supremacy in the fifteenth Century. Commerce and financial services ar just far more developed and deeply fasten now than they were at that time because of the availability of modern electronic communication.Moreover, commerce and trade among countries have been change with the establishment in 1995 of the World Trade Organization, a designerful international body composed of one hundred fifty countries, mandated to mediate trade disputes among member nations.While the WTO is relatively young, its trading system is over half a one C old because its predecessor was the General Agreement on Tariff and Tax (GATT) which was founded in 1948. The old GATT evolved done several rounds of negotiation until it was renamed into the present WTO with expanded powers and responsibilities that now cover trade in s ervices and traded inventions, creations, and designs together with known as intellectual property.Officials of IMF, World Bank and WTO have high hopes for globalization to improve the destitute lives of people across the globe, particularly those from Africa.They take credit for the improvement of Third World economies, including that of India, in recent years. Developed countries such as the United States, EU, Japan, and Canada have bonded together to collectively endorse trade globalization through the WTO as a means to liberalize trade (IMF Staff, 2000).Unfortunately not everyone is happy with globalization, particularly exploitation countries. Some view the WTO with distrust and have rejected it altogether. Others with suspicion and misgiving, but joined it nevertheless as a necessary evil. They feel globalization is the handiwork of transnational companies out to dictate their terms to the sad Third World.In general, those who oppose globalization as institutionalized by the WTO, World Bank, and other similar institutions, deliberate that it to a lower placemines the sovereign will of ugly and developing countries in favor of multinational corporations from developed countries. They claim that corporations atomic number 18 given too much privilege to move freely across borders, extracting desired natural resources from poor countries and claiming them as their intellectual property.For example, a multinational company could full a certain plant or organism with medicinal value endemic to a particular country and claim to own it under the rules of intellectual property.Because of the stringent, or rather lopsided, rules on intellectual property rights by the WTO in favor of multinational companies, countries are becoming more and more subservient to multinational pharmaceutical companies for the treatment of dreaded diseases same AIDs.Despite the availability of cheaper generic drugs, many countries in Africa stricken with the AIDS pandemic ar e otiose to secure them because countries must jump through multiple hoops to prove they are truly in need, unable to afford patented drugs and incapable of producing the medicines domestically. Meanwhile, there is no guarantee that there will be a sufficient supply of drugs for them to buy, since the deal also puts up hurdles for countries wanting to export (Klein, 2001).Poor bucolic countries are likewise at the losing end of the bargain in so far as globalization is concerned. digression from their access to cheap agricultural inputs, including mechanized equipment, developed countries provide heavy subsidies not just in terms in farm inputs but also in terms export subsidies that make their agricultural products more attractive on the international market.Farm products such as vegetables, beef, and poultry are practically being dumped in poorer countries at prices that cause declines in the agricultural sector of many developing nations.The current inequities of the global tr ading system are being perpetuated rather than resolved under the WTO, given the unequal commensurateness of power between member countries, according to Jean Ziegler, UN Special rapporteur on the Right to Food (Wikipedia, 2007). such inequality is evident in the refusal of the United States to sign and honor the Tokyo Protocol, which compels countries to reduce the use of fogey fuel to reduce global warming, and still get away with it.Using their rights as WTO members and drawing support from the academe and non-government organizations, insider critics of the International Property Rights have openly criticized trade liberation as a bad indemnity that move money from people in developing countries (Intellectual Property Rights, Wikipedia). They have demonstrated their opposition to many WTO policies in various fora, including mass rallies and demonstrations during important WTO meetings.The first international anti-globalization sound off was organized simultaneously in many cities around the world on June 18, 1999. The movement was called the Carnival Against Capitalism, or J18 for short. The day was marked by organizers as an international of protest to coincide with the 25th G8 Summit in Koln, Germany. The protest in Eugene, operating theater turned into a riot when rallyists drove the police out of a small park.The second major mobilization of the anti-globalization movement was held on November 30, 1999, and was known as N30. It is by far the most unsettling protest save against globalization, with protesters blocking delegates entrance to the WTO meetings in Seattle, USA.The protesters and Seattle riot police clashed in the streets after police fired rub gas at demonstrators who blocked the streets and refused to disperse. Over 600 protesters were arrested and thousands were injured.The protest movement was inextricably anti-globalization and anti-multinational corporation (MNC), but was ill-defined over the alternatives and new directions it wished to offer. Nevertheless, the movement, including the less eventful A16 Movement in Washington D.C., cannot be ignored as it spelled out in no uncertain terms the widespread anguish about the direction that globalization has taken and a sense of loss of democratic control by developing countries over their options.The protest also demonstrated lack of faith in the legitimacy of international institutions to objectively mediate trade disputes among nations because of a perceived notion that rules are loaded in favor developed countries.The protest movement debunks First World perception that it has the answers to problems being encountered by their Third World neighbors over issues of trade, health, food supply, poverty, environment, and so forth It does not, especially given our global history of abuse by wealthy nations to amass wealth and power at the expenses of poorer nations.BIBLIOGRAPHYBarnet, Richard J. & Ronald E. Muller. 1974. Global Reach The Power of the Multination al Corporations. New York Simon and Schuster.Berry, Jeffrey M. 1999. The New Liberalism The Rising Power of Citizen Groups.Washington The Brookings Institution.Gill, Stephen. 2000. Towards a Postmodern Prince? The Battle in Seattle as a Moment in the New Politics of Globalization. Millennium, 29(1) 131-40.IMF Staff. 2000. Globalization Threat or Opportunity?Investor Words. 2007. Globalization.Kanbur, Ravi. 2001. Economic Policy, Distribution and Poverty The Nature of Disagreements. Ithaca, N.Y. Cornell University.Keohane, Robert. O and Joseph S. Nye. 1977 Power and mutuality WorldPolitics in Transition. Boston Little Brown.Klein, Naomi. 2001. No Logo. New York Picador.Lichbach, Mark I and Paul Almeida. 2001 Global post and Local Resistance TheNeoliberal Institutional Trilemma and the Battle of Seattle. Working Paper Universityof California, Riverside, February 26.